Diversity-Sensitive Personality Assessment

Steven R. Smith, Radhika Krishnamurthy, Steven R. Smith, Radhika Krishnamurthy

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781135912925
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Clinical Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Diversity-Sensitive Personality Assessment is a comprehensive guide for clinicians to consider how various aspects of client diversity—ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, religion, regionalism, socioeconomic status, and disability status—can impact assessment results, interpretation, and feedback. Chapters co-written by leading experts in the fields of diversity and personality assessment examine the influence of clinician, client, interpersonal, and professional factors within the assessment context. This richly informed and clinically useful volume encourages clinicians to delve into the complex ways in which individuals' personal characteristics, backgrounds, and viewpoints intersect. This book fills an important gap in the personality assessment literature and is an essential resource for clinicians looking to move beyond surface-level understandings of diversity in assessment.

PART I
Clinician Contexts

CHAPTER 1

The Role of Self-Reflection and Self-Assessment in the Psychological Assessment Process

Louise Baca and Steven R. Smith

No matter the reason, we are often uncomfortable when we make ourselves vulnerable to self-examination. This is particularly true for issues related to diversity because of the historical, personal, and social taboos around these topics. Treading into these waters takes courage, and an ability to tolerate both discomfort and ignorance. However, if we wish to be competent clinicians who are sensitive to the needs of the clients we serve, self-evaluation must be our first (and often-repeated) step. The importance of examining one’s own value structure, biases, and social/cultural contexts cannot be overstated (Liang, Tummala-Narra, & West, 2011). Sensitivity to diversity issues requires that we, as clinicians, promote and embody the principles of life-long learning and reflective practice. This chapter asks you to be open to a process of challenging assumptions, to be open to a process of deliberate self-monitoring, and open to a process of asking for feedback from a trusted colleague or professional consultant. These exercises will allow you to carefully consider your challenges, strengths, and “gray areas” in assessing those who might be different from you or from the cultural norm.

There is guidance from the American Psychological Association’s Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice and Organizational Change (APA, 2003) and Guidelines for Providers of Psychological Services to Ethnic, Linguistic, and Culturally Diverse Clients (APA, 1990) that implores psychologists to recognize that they might hold detrimental attitudes and beliefs that can influence their perceptions of, and interactions with, individuals who differ from them culturally, racially, and ethnically. As psychologists, we are also asked to strive to apply culturally appropriate skills in clinical and other applied psychological practices (APA, 2003). Effective clinical or counseling work with diverse individuals requires an understanding of the client’s life experiences and historical oppression before selecting culturally appropriate assessment tools and recommending a course of treatment. In order to be ethical and competent, psychologists’ personal self-reflection is an integral part of the assessment process.

Metacognition, or thinking about thinking, is daunting but necessary if we are to challenge our personal assumptions and biases so as to inform decisions or actions related to assessment. The monitoring of thoughts and feelings actively with persistent and careful consideration is the basis for self-reflection (Sheikh, Milne, & MacGregor, 2007). The dominant culture has the power and privilege to prioritize “action” over “reflection.” In clinical work and training, we focus on conceptualization, treatment planning, and administration of assessment batteries and evaluation of treatment progress as the usual grist for the mill of our psychological work. However, few studies have examined the role of self-exploration and self-reflection on assessment-related decisions as part of the psychological tool kit. “If I only have a hammer then everything looks like a nail” is an unfortunate, but common metaphor that should direct us to move toward a broader and deeper understanding of the role of self-reflection in performing psychological assessment.

Challenging Assumptions

Traditional forms of psychological assessment are filled with assumptions that might be inappropriate or antagonistic to many culturally diverse groups (Sue & Sue, 2013). Awareness of biases and assumptions related to attitudes that are class-bound or culture-bound are often the “blind spots” that are associated with the “assumptive worlds” of both trainees and supervisors. Many supervisors often assume that trainees are as ignorant as they are in relation to multicultural competency. Trainees are then put in a difficult position of recognizing when the “worldview” of the supervisor is being imposed upon them as well as their clients. Should trainees risk upsetting the delicate power imbalance that leads to letters for internship by informing their supervisor that there are other perspectives to consider when approaching psychological assessment? Who is responsible for advocating for both trainees and their diverse clients?

As Fontes (2008) cautions, “We must also practice cultural humility, striving for habits of self-reflection and self-critique that safeguard us from imposing our values on others” (p. 306). But assumptions related to interpreting the meaning of both verbal and non-verbal communication styles of diverse groups are often unchallenged due to a hierarchical system of authority that expects conformity within the workplace or training environment. Assumptions related to the appropriateness of standardized testing or interpretation of performance-based measures or “spikes” on certain scales must all be explored to understand the diversity context of all parties involved in the assessment process. Students and their clients are hesitant to counter stereotypes by those who use their preconceived notions related to social rhythms as a basis for diagnosis and treatment. The complexity related to ethnicity alone is staggering as we talk with beautiful brown children who are a blend of several ethnicities and family lifestyles. Thus, assumptions and stereotypes must be challenged constantly and we have to remind each other that we will not be of service to each other unless we can be honest about how often our assumptions are wrong. We must value honesty and openness above “being right” in order to achieve this first step of self-reflection, which is acknowledging that the more we assume we know, the more we know we have a lot to learn.

Creating a flexible structure for always examining our assumptions about our work might be possible if we agree that we must acknowledge that our assumptions often get us into trouble because our assumptions about each other and about our clients are often wrong. Who is this person and who are her people? Where does she come from? What are the historical, transgenerational soulwounds of trauma that her people have endured (Duran & Duran, 1995)? Why is she here with me now? How can I truly listen so as to hear what matters? How can we work together to be open to our unique relationship with each other? These questions structure the kind of relationship that, when built on trust and authenticity, often allows us to explore our assumptions together and correct one another as we proceed in the assessment process. Can we listen stereophonically, on at least two levels of meaning (one manifest and the other more symbolic or metaphorical)? Can we see both the verbal and the non-verbal communication (the dance) that we do together? Are we checking with our client to make sure that we have truly achieved understanding? Rubin (2008) suggests that excellent listening involves listening deeply with concentration (not wandering into criticisms of you, anticipation of the future, regrets of the past) and equanimity (total acceptance). Why is it easier to achieve this deep listening with some clients rather than others?

When a psychologist experiences great doubt or when counter-transference is an obstruction to the assessment process then, supervision and consultation are the most ethical and practical ways to back up and challenge our initial assumptions. Distortions and illusions are commonplace among mere mortals, which includes those of us who are aware that we are somehow “not getting it” or if we feel “distant and dismissive” with some clients in need of a thorough assessment. The help from a trusted colleague, supervisor, or professional consultant is critical (Falender & Shafranske, 2008). Often the process of sharing assumptions and having these assumptions challenged by a different perspective is the best way to gain clarity and some insight regarding our patterns of connection with others. The critical questions might be the following: “Who do I typically connect with easily?” and “Who are the individuals that I struggle most to understand?” These questions ideally are those we ask ourselves and our trusted colleagues to help us with, in order to discern patterns in our clinical and other interpersonal relationships. Sometimes, we learn that it is similarity rather than difference that leads us to make assumptions and make mistakes in our assessment work. These similarities could be a function of all the diversity variables we can think of or unique interactions of diversity variables that are not easily discerned. Ethnicity can be obscured by names taken in marriage, level of acculturation, phenotype, and English dominance. Factors such as socioeconomic status can be subtle but conveyed by the type of shoes worn, level of education, and location of residence (Liu, Soleck, Hopps, Dunston, & Pickett, 2004).

Avoidant behavior in a clinical assessment can be due to an unexamined degree of homophobia or discomfort with sexuality. Personal discomfort can be ignored by the clinician and can create the environment for unexamined assumptions regarding affectional or sexual orientation. We might still dichotomize sexuality along with gender and make assumptions based upon dress, speech patterns or haircuts and yet, we might continue to be reluctant to check out what could be wrong assumptions. Are we relying on demographic information on forms to inform our clinical assessment rather than being actively engaged in understanding our clients and the bio-psycho-social contexts of their lives? Who is close and trusted enough for us to say, “What am I missing here?” or “Why am I struggling with understanding this person?” It is hard to self-reflect and realize that we might have internalized some socialization that is truly misogynous and derogatory with regard t...